investigation and the boston marathon bombings. a spotlight on magazine series continues with week magazine that senior editor on the piece about the effects of the $833 billion stimulus. host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on this wednesday, may 15, 2013. the house judiciary committee takes testimony today from the u.s. attorney general. eric holder addressed controversial topics at a press briefing yesterday, including accusations the i.r.s. unfairly targeted conservative groups and the justice department's seizure of associated press reporters' phone records. we'd like to hear from enthuse morning, what you think of how the obama administration is handling civil liberties. here are the numbers to call to share your thoughts. democrats, 202-585-3880.

republicans, 202-585-3881. and independents, 202-585-3882. you can also find us online by cspanwj. s a tweet, @ look for c-span on facebook, or email us, journal @c-span.org. inside "the washington post," scott wilson reports this morning, justice department and i.r.s. scandals challenge obama's civil liberties' credibility. president obama, who came to office pledging renewed respect for civil liberties, is today running an administration ad odds with his preelection promises.

host: what do you think? here are some other headlines news this morning. i.r.s. gave a pass to liberals orkt front page of the "usa today." in the 27 months the i.r.s. put a hold on all tea party applications, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a "usa today" review of i.r.s. data shows. host: other headlines, "usa

today" looks at attorney general holder's comments yesterday to the press and says obama team defends war on leaks, justice denies intrusion of news agency. inside the new york daily -- rather, "the new york post," we see these two pages, bipartisan rage amid a.p. furor. nd then we also see coverage of how president obama is being perceived. it says scandals take the nation by storm. from "the washington post," a report says more stormy weather for the attorney general. in the president's first term, air he can holder was a lightning rod for congressional republicans who criticized the administration's handling of law enforcement issues --

host: let's look at what you have to say. jeff, washington, d.c., democrat. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. all i can say is that i think that the president and the administration's handling of he i.r.s. -- or the i.r.s.'s handling of the requests by some conservative groups for waivers and so forth was objective, and i think that once again, republicans -- the republican majority is on their way to starting a new witch hunt. every so often, you know, there's this uproar over something that is so insignificant.

it's just ridiculous. and i'm, frankly, offended, because it seems to me that in this past administration, you herring s just one red after another, and the insistence upon the so-called leaders on the hill to get to the bottom of this and the bottom of that and, you know, instead of just trying to focus on doing the work of the people, and every now and then you hear them, oh, the people -- the american people want this, the american people want that. i just want those guys to do their jobs. host: all right. that's the democratic perspective. jeff was in washington. let's hear a republican, woodbridge, virginia. tom joins us. good morning. caller: good morning. i'll tell you, i think the to one extent or another they all do this, but i disagree completely with the last caller. you know, these are not red herrings. when these things come to the

surface, they're called scandals for a reason. you know, both parties -- that's not a problem right now with the political climate. t's a matter of ones upmanship trying to show how wrong the other side is and their view of the world instead of -- instead of not focusing on, you know, the work of the people. well, what is that? who can tell me what is the work of the -- you know, doing the work of the people? we're spending too much time trying to figure out whether or not we're going to be, you know, whether we're going to lean more socialist or whether we're going to go back more to pure capitalism. we can't even decide as america who we are today. you know, we're in, i believe, you know, we're in the throes of an identity crisis. ost: here are some tweets --

host: they're talk more with us about the attorney general's press conference today is a national reporter from "the washington post." good morning and thank you for joining us. guest: good morning. glad to be here. host: you've been covering the news that the associated press phone records were gotten ahold of by the justice department. what did we learn new yesterday? the attorney general sort of took a pass on some of this. guest: yes, you know, this is sort of -- it's a very extraordinary action by the department of justice. what we found out this week, of course, is the department of justice secretly obtained telephone records from 20 office lines and home lines of sandrortse editors working for the associated press, without the knowledge of the associated press. and what the attorney general said yesterday is these were

seized as part of a year-long investigation into the disclosure of classified information about a failed al qaeda plot in yemen. and eric holder, the attorney general, was interviewed as part of this investigation, of course, they're trying to figure out who leaked this information to the associated press. so the attorney general said yesterday that because he was interviewed, he recused himself last year from the investigation. and instead, he put in charge his deputy, a man named jim cole. he was put in charge of the investigation and made the decision, this very unprecedented decision, to seize records from the associated press. and what eric holder said yesterday is this was a very, very serious leak. he called it one of the top two or three most serious leaks he's ever seen. he said it put the american people at risk. and that trying to determine who in the obama administration

possibly was responsible for that required aggressive action. host: sari horowitz, one of our followers on twitter writes in and that says this shows that they don't follow their own rules. what about probable cause or warrants? how is the justice department defending the legality of what they did? guest: what eric holder says is, although he doesn't know all the details of the investigation because he recused himself, that he's confident, he said, that his officials have followed all the department of justice regulations and rules. the deputy attorney general, jim cole, wrote a letter to the associated press president yesterday, saying that they took this action only after conducting, i think it was like 550 enter views and reviewing tens of thousands of documents and that they did follow all their rules. one of the rules is when they're investigate a media organization, they have to tell the media organization within 45 days or they have to get a

45-day extension, which is what they did in this case much they told them 90 days after the grand jury subpoena went to the telephone companies for the records. host: give us a big-picture look at how the attorney general's performance is being viewed right now. you report he's been laying low publicly recently, but that appears to be over. he was thrust back into the spotlight yesterday, and we'll see him testify before a house committee today. so where is his perception level at, and how is that reflecting on the obama administration? guest: well, i think there's a lot of anger out there about this action by the justice department, even though attorney general eric holder says he personally didn't make this decision. yes, he has been laying low. in the first term of the obama administration, he was a lightning rod for republican lawmakers who criticized the obama administration on, of course, the botched gun operation in phoenix known as fast and furious, and national

security issues and the civil rights issues, voting rights issues. but now with this particular action, he's being criticized by republicans and democrats alike and media groups and government and secrecy groups, all sorts of organizations. and as you pointed out today, he's going to be testifying before the house judiciary committee, which already has scheduled a hearing, but the chairman that have committee has said that he's going to face a lot of questions about this particular action. and as i said, he's being criticized by democrats like senator leahy, yesterday the representative from new jersey, a democrat, talked about these allegations, if they were true, cast an incredibly dark cloud over the administration. republicans have talked about how this is a case of trampling first amendment rights. horwitz, what are

you going to be watching for as the attorney general testifies today and as we look forward the next couple of weeks? guest: he's going to be asked about this case, but he's also going to be asked about the criminal probe of the i.r.s. over its targeting of conservative groups. he's going to be asked more details about the boston bombing plot. a lot of things we don't know about that case. so it should be a very interesting and hope ofly informative hearing today. -- and hopefully informative hearing today. host: sari horwitz, thank you for talking with us. you can find her story on the "washington post" website, also the front page of the paper today. the attorney general's testimony before the house judiciary committee will be broadcast live on c-span. that's at 1:00 eastern time. you can also find it on our website, c-span.org. we're asking you for your thoughts this morning on the obama administration's handling of civil liberties. jacob is our next caller, brookville, ohio, independent line. go ahead. caller: yeah, it's like living under nazi germany rules with

an iron fist and very well vote glove over it. zpashe velvet glove over it. you find video of eric holder li talking about how they need to brainwash the american public into not believing in guns. they want to take that away. pretty much, they want nazi rule over us. host: anchorage, alaska, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: very early where you are. what's on your mind? caller: i just wanted to say at we gave our civil liberty away with the patriot act, so i don't know why everybody is screaming, because we have hardly any civil liberties now. host: do you see a difference between the way the obama administration has handled civil liberties versus the way the bush administration did? caller: well, the bush

dministration, the patriot act came under his administration, and i mean, when that happened, they can come into your home and do almost anything, investigate your records, so why are we screaming over this? i mean, it makes no sense. there are many things that congress needs to be doing, and this is just a side issue to just divert our attention from the real problem. host: well, attorney general holder was asked yesterday by a reporter if the obama administration was "trampling" on civil liberty to the extent the bush administration did. here's what the attorney general had to say. >> no, we're not. this administration has put a real value on the rule of law and our values as americans. i think the actions that we have taken are consistent with both. if one looks at in a

dispassionate way what we have done in a whole variety of moribund civil rights division, and that is a division now that has brought record numbers of cases, protected record numbers of people. i would take issue with you with regard to how we have conducted the war on terror and with regard to terrorism policy. there were changes made by this administration, a repudiation of opinions that existed when we came into office. so we're talking about, i think, changes that were consistent with, as i said, with what the president campaigned on and what we talked about early on. host: attorney general holder yesterday. john, your thoughts, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: yeah, he's done a miserable job. he's just expanded on what bush has done. we should have known this when he was a senator. i still believe when he

backtracked and reversed himself on the telephone companies over records. he said he was against it, against it, against it, and then he voted for it. and then the defense authorization act, bradley manning, wikileaks, all the whistle blowers that they've prosecuted, he's worse than ush as far as i'm concerned. and holder is worse than both of them. host: carla, st. paul, minnesota, go ahead -- oh, we lost her. let's go to debbie, who jones from us michigan, independent line. hi, debbie. caller: hi. good morning. host: good morning. caller: i would just like to say that i think the benghazi thing, that they're really concentrating on one aspect of it. there's three areas that really are to blame for that. congress is to blame for cutting security funding, not just last year, but the year before they cut $121 million.

last year, according to you guys, it was $331 million so. there's not enough money to defend all of our consulates and people. then you have -- he was at a c.i.a. facility. the c.i.a. vetted the militia that was protecting that facility. the c.i.a. was vetted by one of the rupert murdoch's favorite candidates to be the next republican president candidate. and so the media is concentrating on the state department's role, which has problems, too. but to me, i look at that, and there's two republican causes for benghazi and one democratic cause. on the i.r.s. thing, i would like to have the facts on -- i think that when the democrats started the 527 things and during the 2004 election, there

was i.r.s. -- the i.r.s. was trying to strip churches that had sermons against the iraq war of their tax-implement status and also the i.r.s. investigated the ncaa c.t. for the same thing. so some of this stuff is on both sides, both republicans and democrats have done a little bit of this. but i'd like to remind people that when this thing started in 2010, 2011, the person in charge of the i.r.s. is the guy bush put in. so does he let this go to make a mess of it for the obama administration? there's just as much that. the other thing is to really tell -- host: you gave us a lot to work over. last thoughts? caller: say one more thing, because i worked in a nonprofit area for many years. when you look at the -- there's

a huge number of nonprofits, and not all of them are totally legit. and when you look at the number of what happened with the tea party, what you need to look at is during 2010 and 2011, what was the total number of people or groups applying for that status? host: ok, we'll look at that in just a moment. let me show you a couple of facebook comments. shane says -- when a democrat is in the white house, libya media checks their consciousness at the door of the pressroom. and james says, i canvas and had voted for president obama. politically he's done some good. he asks his supporters to overlook a lot, and i can't do it any longer. seven people said that they liked that by going to our facebook page. here's some more information about what we saw in this i.r.s. tea party scrutiny. the new york teams has the headline, miss management by

the i.r.s. cited in the tea party scrutiny. a report issued yesterday blamed ineffective i.r.s. management in the failure to stop employees from singling out conservative groups for added scrutiny. host: carl, chicago, illinois, democrat. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. how are you? host: good. caller: i'd like to say for the most part, all of this is much

ato about nothing -- much ado about nothing. what seems to be lost is the media for five years hasn't had what they call the sexy story, you know, the gossip, sex, some sort of scandal. basically right now they're in a frenzy. what's lost on this, particularly the justice department thing is, guess what, it was legal. they had a subpoena. there's no scandal there. disagree with some of the -- i'm critical of some of the policies sometimes with the president, but there's no illegality in any of this. and by the way, surprise, surprise, you know, with the i.r.s., it's sort of like saying, oh, we didn't know that they had prostitution and gambling in vegas. this administration, when they

were in office, they had political come i sars in every agency of the government. i guess people have forgotten about the fact that, well, what the justice department did then with the screening is they weren't hiring anyone who was a conservative. i mean, this stuff is like -- it's not anything new, and the media is just like lost, oh, the sky is falling. you had a previous caller who id, well, this stuff is just a lot hyperbole. host: caller, let's take a look at what the response has been from the proshtesesms the president and c.e.o. released this statement -- we appreciate the d.o.j.'s prompt response, but it does not adequately address our concerns. they said the officials have complied with, it but there are three significant concerns that gary pruitt lays out. he said the scope was subpoena

was overbroad under the law, and rather than talk to us in advance, they seized the phone records in secret. and they captured the telephone numbers between scores of a.p. journalists and the many people they talked to in the normal business of gathering news. how is the narrowing the scope of the phone records have compromised their investigation, he asks. finally, they say secrecy is important for national security and gary p ru itt says it's always difficult to respond to that, particularly since they haven't told us specifically what they are investigating. "the wall street journal" has this headline, holder defends the records is he sure with a picture there of the c.e.o. of the associated press. also, the top democrat in the senate, majority leader harry reid, has come out and made comments. he called the a.p. scandal of the justice department inexcusable. here's the headline from "the washington times" -- in the wake of the revelations at the justice department secretly subpoenaed phone records of a.p. reporters and editors las

senate are beginning to weigh in. the na nave democrat saidive trouble defending what the justice department -- the nevada democrat said i have trouble defending what the justice department did. caller: i think -- again, this is consistent all the way through republican and democrat administrations, and with each succeeding administration, it gets worse and worse as far as these guys being flat out criminals against the supreme law of the land, the constitution. and i really think the root of the problem, though, is the people ourselves. if you go back to the bankers manifest owe of 1892 and see how these two parties, democrats and republicans have been used to divide the people -- now, on something like this, it's the same. we have the democrat line

criticizing the republican administration, the republican line, you know, criticizing, and that's the other thing, criticizing. these guys should be thrown out of office, and we have a constitutional remedy, which is impeachment. you don't hear anyone calling for that. you know why? because the people aren't calling for that. and you know why? because it's a democrat in office, so the ones who would call for it are half the population, the republicans, and then the people that are loyal to the democrat party stay silent, but most would give a statement of opposition or criticism. i really wish c-span would get rid of these democrat lines and republican lines, still keep the numbers, you'll still get the same amount of calls, but it would allow people to actually start thinking for themselves again instead of

repeating what they heard from eir party of loyal's talking heads. host: we want to try to get a range of opinions and give all perspectives a chance to get on the air. you think there's a different way we should divide things up? caller: yes, i do, libby, just in the numbers. you know, just let the american people call in and give their opinions. because, really, if you think about it, the talking points, it's the same. you know, there's things about benghazi that are very serious that are not being talked about because they're not in the framing of the discussion. you know, like the gun running that our government's been doing into libya and syria, the rebels, to stir up trouble so we can, you know, engage in regime change. host: thank you, phil, in florida. let's get more of the i.r.s. story. this is from the "baltimore sun" today. the report finds disarray at

the i.r.s. the growing scandal at the i.r.s. stemmed from a confused staff and lax oversight, according to an eagerly awaited inspector general's report released yesterday, shortly after federal authorities began a criminal investigation into overzealous scrutiny of conservative groups that had applied for tax-exempt status. and we have that report on our website. if you'd like to read it for yourself, you can go to c-span.org and find it there. michael, rockville center, new york, republican, go ahead. caller: good morning. i think we have to distinguish between these three controversies. the matter regarding the associated press would appear to have some legitimacy, and as a republican, but more so as an american, i would defend the president's administration into looking into it, because from what i've read anyway, there was a concern that there may have been a breach of national security interest, and that may be -- may be -- the legitimate issue there. the other two issues as it

relates to benghazi, and more importantly, to the i was irmatter, benghazi just appears to be mispieceance. and as americans, what we cherish in unity is the fact that, lesson, we do not leave our own behind. we will constantly take care of those that work and represent the interest of all americans, as do every one of our people in overseas embassies. the i.r.s. matter, though, i think is just disturbing. to target any group, let alone these conservative groups, does not seem to upset americans. but when you read that among those groups was billy graham's group, who was audited in ptember before the election, and at the same time before, there was legislation pending on same sex marriage, which obviously billy graham and those of his followers are enormously conservative, is deeply troubling and extremely

un-american. listen, at a minimum, we may be democrats and republicans, we may be liberals and conserve tives, but what we cherish is the laws of the land, and we cherish the u.s. constitution and our freedoms. and if it's turned out that there was an organized effort to use the i.r.s. to restrain public opinion by targeting specific individuals with audits, that is just absolutely un-american and unacceptable. host: michael, stay on the line for one moment, if you will, and let's share what the president had to say about the i.r.s.. he said the report's findings are intolerable and inexcusable. this comes from president obama. the federal government must conduct itself in a way that's worthy of the public trust and that's especially true for the i.r.s. is that strong enough of a statement for you, michael? caller: you know, it's not sufficient, but the problem i find with president obama is he's an incredibly likable man.

let me just say, as an american, as someone who was young enough to remember when african-americans were riding the basket bus, even though i may not have voted for him, i'm enormously proud of him. he is represented of nothing greater -- he represents all the united states of america. and he is a his rhetoric is that he is above it all. he is the chief executive officer. any trueleman lacks corporate experience. it is never been more evident in the malfeasance which is becoming more evident. increasingly one of the earliest lane ducks as a result of these controversies --

lame ducks. host: this is in response to the irs investigation. regardless how this conduct was allowed, it is wrong. host: some other stories in the news about the irs situation. the washington times." see in "the wall street

journal." cost time, money, and political opportunities. -- man lawn state nonprofit one man launched a nonprofit group. host: "usa today" charts out which groups were given tax exempt status over a time period.

partys granted no tea status.x-exempt none jumping down to june of 2012. see it more groups as the month went on into 2013. liz, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know that when i hear someone speak that they have read the documents they are speaking about. when peoplet a lot are talking. irs, i wouldo the be willing to bet that was a

trio of irish situation -- triage situation. you put in a key word and all that a thousand things come up. targeting that as long as there was equal targeting. you will not get a lot of hits on a web search. that may be why they were specifically targeted. it is a simple way of churches getting involved in appalled 6. they are tax exempt. to contributeches to political parties. i know of a possible situation or that was going on. i think the most put at risk besides the income porter's --

the reporters were the sources. we aed to be careful when gauge in things regardless -- when we engage in things with respect to the press. against them.k i have a million things more to say. talked about how the irs treats different groups. there was an audit that was released yesterday.

host: robert from maryland, independent caller. caller: good morning. realize thedo not macro picture of what is going on here. .'m so very disturbed thesimilarities of some of right wing people, the nazi party's ascension to power. these people would do anything to stir up the minds of people in their ascent to power. once they got power, then they would do anything. thelady said about

communist and the fascist. we have seen a transition in our country over the last 30 years. a fascist state of mind is returning. it is a cooperation between government and collaboration. host: what do you think of the obama administration's and link of civil liberties. is to: the whole purpose reassess and for power for a certain kind of life. anything they can do to create conflict, to make anything that goes against their way of how this country should be run, it will be done. you talk about benghazi.

as soon as this problem, they want to blame the administration. the overall picture is each of these issues, it benefits them and forces people back into what these people want to be. host: we have some comments on twitter. host: eric holder did address the irs alleged targeting of conservative groups. let's hear what he had to say. [video clip] ordered an investigation to begin. thefbi is coordinating with justice department to see if any

laws or broken. it was criminal or certainly outrageous and unacceptable. we're examining the facts. host: the attorney general will be appearing today on capitol hill. that is scheduled to start at 1:00 p.m. eastern time and will be broadcasting that on c-span3, c-span radio, and c-span.org. there will be more testimony about the irs issue. the house ways and means committee will have a hearing on friday. website,rmation on our c-span.org. writes in --

let's hear from a republican in kansas. good morning. caller: good morning. oroticed your newspaper clip the president expected elected thecials to be held up to expectations of the national leaders. i do not understand why our culture is still even in office. gun-e were killed on the running a scheme that they call fast and furious with the mexican civilians and the border security officer that had been killed. he has not answered to those charges yet. host: what you think of the obama administration's handling of civil liberties.

caller: we have been losing more civil liberties in the name of public safety. it.t's not the way to do w people do not realize how easy it is to put phone taps on lines. taking away liberties in the name of safety. does civil liberty mean to you? caller: a person should live their own life as they choose. treat your brother like you would treat yourself. host: thomas is a democrat in annapolis. what do civil liberties mean to you? caller: i am appalled about this man we have in the whitethere if

another --one lie. eric holder is a racist. host: how do you correlate race to the president's actions? terrible, as far as i can see. host: you don't want him to run the country because he is black? caller: that is right. host: that sounds racist. caller: he is supposed to be the president of all of us. onst: let's go on to the d rahm florifrom florida. caller: fast and furious was

begun by the bush administration. let's get to the irs. naacp.'s when off on the where was c-span? where was fox news? fight.cp had to they needed expensive lawyers to defend themselves. there was no media or politicians. this is the sad part about it. it doesn't pertain to white america, you do not give a darn about it. many people walk around this country saying they are christian. my mother taught us how to be christian.

everybody looks at things from their hieyes. let's see what is going on with this country. liberties. on civil caller: the pursuit of happiness. there are certain people in this country. if they do not look like them, we do not have the same rights. when are you going to open your eyes and say let's be fair about this. you talk about benghazi. hit.eople were pa only eight were hit in iraq. host: let's move on to other

news. graphic of the projected fiscal year 2013 deficit. it is less than half the deficit recorded two years ago. that onfind more about our website, c-span.org. we of more information about the deficit estimate there. at aornia is looking budget surplus. cash.rnia will have extra approved.ill was the senate agriculture committee approved a farm bill while approving new subsidies for farmers. there is a new top republican on

the committee, mississippi senator cochran. direct payments are important for those southern farmers. we will be talking about this bill more on "washington journal" in the coming days. this is from "the new york times." anning to the courts, abortion doctor is pared the death penalty. he agreed not to appeal the verdict in exchange for being scared the death penalty. we'll talk with members of congress and get their response on a range of topics. first up will be john mica.

later we'll hear from brian higgins. back.l be right >> in every society, the major buildings like trees reflect the crowd out of which they grow. major buildings reflect political situation of their culture at the time. this building does that. this is an eloquent building. it reflects the movement towards secession. it reflects the use of slave labor. it reflects the social turmoil

of post civil war era. it reflects optimism of the new south in the 20th-century and continues to reflect south carolina today. the building was designed to be symmetrical. the instead of a dome, the original architect envisioned a square tower. the construction was stopped during the civil war and the state was not able to afford to build the foundations for that massive stone tower. what we see on the outside of the building is a pressed metal dome. on the inside of the building will look up into what we think is that dome put is an architectural solution that two dome's inside the original dome.

the exterior of the building and the interior floor plan are not symmetrical. on the outside the dome looks like perhaps the u.s. capitol dome. on the inside it is smaller and different. >> learn more about the south carolina statehouse this weekend. look at the history of columbia, south carolina, on c-span2's "book tv." continues.n journal" ist: congress been john mica our guest. he represents the seventh district. guest: good to be with you. host: we want to talk about the irs. stephen miller had an opinion

piece where he says we should have done a better job. the stakes were made. guest: we hope that is the case. droppedthe bombshell, last week. the inspector oferal highlights a host abuses and unfortunately congress now has the responsibility of investigating what to place. that will happen this week with the ways and means committee and possibly other committees. you cannot take an agency like be, which is supposed to fair to all citizens and organizations and have it miss use its power. the report speaks for itself.

i don't know if you had a chance to review it. i understand you have put online. host: c-span.org. guest: so your viewers can see it. they requested on necessary information and harassed the groups by that method. the commentary is about something that is being made in a partisan manner. was going to lid blow off and so they leaked this out. the acting commissioner has tried to temper that with his commentary. i believe the attorney general has now launched an investigation. said thereholder

will be an investigation. primaryongress has a responsibility. there may be some evidence already. you don't just launched one of these investigations unless there is some criminal activity. there remains to be seen. i have some concern when the department of justice or fbi gets a hold of a case. you have months and months of delays. sometimes you have a congress restrained from talking to folks because there is an investigation going on. i am not sure his role at this juncture. i read part of the report. individualsome either misled or lied to congress, which might be a

serious offense. i don't know of specific criminal activity or how high up the chain of command, who gave these orders. there's talk of a small team in cincinnati. somebody at a high level must have been involved to allow this to proceed. it was not from some time. the report details the time. election toore the target the conservative groups is a pretty serious matter. to close them down before the election. i heard this morning but some of the other groups were expediting some of theirequests for this

501c4 status, which raises questions. as applications sat in -- this is a story from "usa today." there will be a hearing on friday. our guest is congressman john mica. he's the chairman of the government operations subcommittee. it.t: we will look at i talk to the chairman yesterday. betternot have a respected individual heading the investigation. the irs is under ways and means authority.

about investigate just anything. we will see if there are some things -- sometimes these matters go beyond one area of jurisdiction. issa.up to mr. asked someod mr. issa questions, senator hatch. they were not given the proper information, which raises a lot of question. our committee has a role in the future. howof the key questions is far did this go? thatthere other agencies were using this kind of targeting before the election to go after certain political interests or folks that might

make a difference in the election. .hen you have a serious matter right now we're in a preliminary state. we do not know and we do not want to speculate. host: you can join the conversation. democrats, 202-737-0001. republicans, 202-737-0002. 0205.endents, 202-628- first up is lou. was audited twice before the 2012 election. my accountant said this was a peculiar. i give to all types of republican candidates.

on the huffington post, too. they listed all the major donors. i feel i was one of the people targeted before the election of 2012. is hardt this stage it to say anything that would indicate they would target anyone that were donors like yourself. i know now some of the group's who advocate various positions already feel like they have been victimized by the government and have not shown proper attention and think folks are coming after them. this is going to raise a whole issues.speculative

atin, there's no way to tell thi tels point. we have to find out what to place. ohio haser from introduced legislation. i understand some of the penalties if somebody purposely does this in an agency are weaker and he has introduced i have agreed to help be a co-sponsor of that legislation. we need to make certain people accountable and find out what happened and make certain that that is nailed down, and makes turned it does not happen again. we are always trying to perfect

the system. you do not want the electoral system violated. that is what makes us a great and free country. host: steve from kansas. caller: good morning. i am concerned about the attitude of the republican congress. ult ofhing is the fall president obama. you've lost two elections to him. you'll try to find something that connects the white house to a scandal. how do you expect any better when your party comes to power? guest: i would have to take issue with you.

ande we could go back replace my comments. theied to stick to what inspector general has disclosed. potter that was disclosed by some of the folks at irs. i did not write the headlines of every major newspaper today. this is not something that we are blowing out of proportion. we are trying to find the facts. that is our responsibility. i did not mention president obama in my commentary. there have been presidents who've with use this and some have been republicans. some are accused of abuse, nixon. his second impeachment

article or statement was that he had used improperly irs. that we haveg linkage to the higher ups in the obama administration. when the inspector general brings this out, this is not a partisan issue. this is something passed to be fully vetted. irsnow that some folks add misled members of congress about what was going on for several years now. last weekthe end of did we have an inkling. you should go online and find the report. it lays out the timetable. republicans did not prepare

this. these are the facts. you want to try to be responsible and make sure we fixed a problem and that we hold people accountable and make certain it does not happen again. on ourhat report is website, c-span.org. we have some headlines. from smiley.et focus even today the shifts from a whole host of things. implementation of obamacare. you have the question of our debt ceiling.

the country and not being physically --fiscally responsible. a time and nowat you have the latest one, a.p. which again is not a partisan thing. a.p. have disclosed some of what have taken some additional requirements or harassment in an investigation. these things do detractor. the work of congress still goes on. a lot of that is day-to-day work that doesn't get the headlines. a democrat from colorado. theer: i hope i can take

congressman at his word. he does look awfully happy this morning. guest: it is a beautiful day in washington. social welfarec4 exemption for social welfare the pactle groups when qualifies as a charitable social wear fur organization and gets a tax exemption. it was congress in the first place that kept complaining as if they were victims of some targeted irs scandal. i would hope that the congressman would join in fully

funding the irs because the sequester has cut funds to it. to irs is required by law make sure that these programs qualified for this welfare primarily which is not to be used for political purposes. it seems the whole fall vacation is just a joke. maybe these exemptions should be outlawed. twitteris if you're on twitter agreeson with you. i think people would be startled to find that right here they said ira's exemption division began targeting

applicants with names containing patriots and other political parties as well as a group founded by commentator gwen baclenn beck. this is from the report. beck and others and sometimes you agree or disagree with them. this group was targeted and that is a pretty serious offense when you go after folks like that. should bethis country entitled to their free speech. in cannot defame people public and there is liability laws. it is pretty much fair game in

the political arena. to have an independent agency beck the irs target mr. and tea party conservative groups -- these are reports. congress has a responsibility to get the facts. commentary.my this is the summary of the report prepared by the attorney general. it is on the front page of the paper. it is a serious matter. said thiscaller exempt status should be done away with. guest: that is an interesting question.

should groups have the right to participate and not get into the tax arena or be liable for taxes for practicing free speech. the courts always held on the side of these groups. they have allowed some of the business groups to get engaged. it is under the first amendment, free speech. i think it would be hard to close them down. it would be hard to tax them. i guess you could pass a law. twitter -- k on guest: you got me. i'm not an attorney. that is something you have to

decide by law. so far i think the courts have held that just about every group and every individual has the right to spend their money and you cannot impose a penalty on them. we have a process for determining that status. status gives them the taxes.o be engaged in we may want to revisit all of this. mary from ohio. caller: i agree with everything that has been said so far, especially by the callers. is how easy itg

is to attain one of these tax exemptions. i have a free speech. maybe i should be tax exempt. a everybody is going to get tax exemption, who is going to pay the taxes? is onlyhe tax exemption for the activity. it is not that they are not going to be paying taxes. as i understand it, they do process these applications. everybody does not get them. thangot them quicker a valuationhey met which has been disclosed by the inspector general of the treasury department.

that is not fair if you're giving them on an equitable basis to target conservative groups and to lay their processes and ask them additional and unnecessary questions. get thosether groups requests expedited. that is something that has to be looked at very carefully. host: representative john mica of florida. he sits on the oversight and reform committee and he's the chairman of the government operations subcommittee. ray from new hampshire. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to talk about privacy. theres, the

were looking at celebrity tax returns. some safeguards were put in to keep this from happening. the irs will be the enforcement arm with making sure we have health insurance and they will have access to our health records to determine our we eligible for tax credits or will we be paying taxes if we do not have health insurance. what kind of assurances do the american people have that this information is not going to be leaked? how is it going to be safeguarded? what kind of training and ethics are they going to have so

we can be sure our most sensitive information is going to be kept secret? guest: very good point. the caller raises a host of issues. you cannot take things for granted with these 501c4 applications. enforces 16,000 irs have access to all kinds of information. the caller raises an excellent innoint of protecting folks light of this incident. you want to make sure you have the right of protection. there was a bill that would have certain penalties for irs

employees who misused their power. we may want to extend that into the new realm of health care. ost: we see this headline in "the washington post" this morning. the justice department is being criticized. issue discussed with the attorney general yesterday. field questions about this. is this a fair game? guest: possibly. it does have multiple jurisdictions. leak ofs a cia information.

abilitieshas certain to go out and talk to folks and report the news and not be harassed unduly. classified information and the leak of it has been a problem. i have picked up the paper and been stunned about what i read. pose a risk for the united states in some things we are trying to protect the united states under wraps, it raises issues. what is unusual is the number of folks they went after with subpoenas and the amount of time and information they were collecting. i do not know if there were

wiretaps' involved. that is the responsibility of congress. did they miss use or abuse their power and try to correct it. trying to protect the system. the media liken the a.p., you are taking on some pretty powerful news players. that gets a lot of attention. other issues off the -- it blows other issues off the front page. we had benghazi last week. now the irs. takenese scandals are over other things.

the investigation should go on. people are spending more time commenting on those issues. the rest of the business of congress must go on. orchard park, from new york. all agreethink we can that the irs must be a political -- apolitical. everybody else is a career employees. they don'tt mean have political views. once the investigation is completed, it will show stupidity as opposed to political motive. isreal question, mr. mica,

feel that theus republicans are selectively outraged. when the naacp made some political statements, their tax- exempt status was audited. it took a couple of years of an extensive audit. record the congressional would show that you were silent on that matter. guest: i may have been. i do not weigh in on everything. i have been asked to comment on this for the first time. what you said in the beginning that the irs needs to be apolitical, i think everybody agrees on that. i think this will be limited to

some low-level officials. i was concerned when i read the report. i did not know the history of this. some other members made inquiries about senators targeting. either of congress were misled or lied to. that is a serious offense. you have to find out what the facts are and go after folks. willimes folks in congress go off on different tangents. we should not do that here. y. should act responsiblly highlight going to things that may be of particular

interest to the other side and vice versa. that is part of the political either side should have a fair chance to state their position and advocate for their interest. mica isngressman john on the transportation and infrastructure committee. tom, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. you have a militant, leftist -- the irs is serving as a political activist for obama. she has been one of the ringleaders, learner.

she claims that this investigation had nothing to do with political ideology. needs to bethe irs fumigated of all those activists. we will see this for years and years to come. guest: mr. miller is the acting irs commissioner. he will be in on friday. then the inspector general. miller is acting. think he was there during the time that a lot of this took place. miller will be answering for what took place under a different watch. and then the name people to not know, lois lerner.

thehas been in charge of tax-exempt division. some ofchanging around the criteria. i should not say that. she may have been involved. reports again place her in the middle of some of this. it is a name that people do not know. ther friday, she will be on hot seat before congress i have to answer a lot of questions. she was in charge of some of this activity. we'll see how far up the chain it went. host: that hearing on friday is that 9:00 a.m. you can find out more on our c- span.org website. joseph brings up the point that the irs has a bush appointee.

matter whooes not does this stuff. investigating in local governments. the first person i put in jail was a republican. it does not matter who is doing something wrong. responsibility weather is local, state, or federal -- that is what makes this country great. that is a great part about america. in other countries, it would have been ignored. ont: we have some floridians the line. guest: it is not pretty. host: bob from lakeland. caller: this is bought in

virginia. in virginia. good morning. there's a lot of stuff that will have to be investigated. thetill seems like republicans are using anything and everything. to have it their way, president obama killed the officials in benghazi. it seems like they will try to bring him down or make him look bad. he lost the, election. i guess he his mind, figures he didn't. e yo need to work together.

i hope i live long enough to see it. you have a good day. guest: part of our job is to go after things that are not going aret, whether you republican or democrat. he mentioned benghazi. -- beaten upbe not by folks on our side. five committees did a report. ans and months.nthe we allowed the witnesses to speak and tell their stories. i think the country was riveted

to hear mr. hicks last week. you try to be fair. sometimes you get beat up by both sides. maybe somewhere in between. this is another example. saw thisadministration was a bomb being dropped and try to temper that. they disclosed some of this initially. this report was not supposed to, for two more weeks. this thing has gone nuclear. there are some pretty serious charges in here. report is on our website, c-span.org. has assman frank wolf proposal to set up a special

benghazi investigation panel. the houseainst what speaker is calling for. it to stay in the jurisdiction of the committee. you have signed the resolution of frank wolf. guest: i am not sure on that. i think it should stay with government reform. multi agencyhas jurisdiction. i think it has been handled well by mr. issa. to form another committee will take more time, start over, more staffing. i disagree with that. it has taken some time. u have a criminal investigation ongoing. i think it's to stay in

government reform. i see no reason to take it out. host: have you sign onto anything that frank wolf is calling for? made: i think mr. boehner the right decision. we had the five committees. folks are coming for who were there and testified. melvin, as hear from democrat. caller: fort lauderdale, florida. i think the irs was correct in what they did. when you have the supreme court, have allcision and you of the tea party people who put

in for these application for this 501c4. oftrickles the amount applicants and they start using the same type of a vernacular for getting their approval request put in. that is the target right there. these people are all putting in and using the same information. automatic intention for that. there's a change in the law. people are increasing the number of people putting in for it. i hope they call the general to testify about benghazi. offeredated that he ambassador stevens an 18-man

military detail and he personally turned it down. they call him in so the he can testify. host: let's get the thoughts of the congressman. guest: in this report, they targeted groups of tea party patriots, folks like glenn beck. and they switched their .riteria after some inquiries and this is quotes from irs, solitical-type organization involved in limiting or expanding government, educating on the bill of rights, social and economic reform movement. this speaks for itself. i don't think anybody is going to be happy with what they see in the report and who they went after. host: melvyn, then our tweeter

could any -- how can any tea party group be reasonably classified as a social welfare organization? should they have a shot at being classified and categorized as social welfare? guest: again, i don't know enough about that definition, but i would say they have a right like any other group, liberal, conservative. they are not advocating the overthrow of the government. they don't pose a risk. they have a political -- the lyrical belief. some are conservative, some are liberal. and we should not be -- they have a political belief. some are conservative, some are liberal. and we should not be targeting groups like that. host: thanks so much for joining us. we will see attorney general eric holder testified before

the house judiciary committee this afternoon at 1:00 eastern time. you can find that on c-span numeral three. you can also find more information about that on our website. coming up next, congressman brian higgins, democrat of new york, joins us. he serves on homeland security and intelligence and counterterrorism subcommittees. later on, our spotlight on magazines looks at "reason" magazine and a piece questioning the use of stimulus money. here is a news update from c- span radio. >> it is a: 32 eastern time. an update on the irs review -- 8:32 eastern time. an update on the irs review. the white house press secretary said at yesterday's daily briefing that, "i can tell you that i am not aware of anyone here knowing about it." turning to sexual assault in the military for the second time this month, a member of the armed forces assigned to help

her event sexual assault in the military is under investigation for alleged sexual misconduct -- help for event sexual assault in the military is under investigation for alleged sexual misconduct. reports last week that an air force officer who headed a sexual assault prevention office was arrested on charges of groping a woman in a northern virginia parking lot. lawmakers say it is time for defense secretary chuck hagel to get tough. the u.s. ambassador to russia has been summoned by the russian foreign ministry in connection with yesterday's alleged spy detention in moscow. the building this morning and left half an hour later without saying a word to journalists waiting. russia said it briefly detained a secretary at the u.s. embassy in moscow. it appears to be the first case of an american diplomat publicly accused of spying in about a decade. he was later handed over to u.s. embassy officials. those are some of the latest

headlines on c-span radio. >> this is a painting that shows her tending to a wounded soldier during the civil war, it -- civil war. two causes that were very close to her were veterans and soldiers and also children who had been made orphans as a result of the civil war. they would sit here in this formal parlor. she was such a wonderful hostess. she wanted people to feel very welcome here. this is where they would sit. this is where they would discuss the issues of the day. numberuld have hosted a of political figures here for dinner, including future presidents taft and mckinley. also, william tecumseh sherman was a guest for dinner, as well as a number of other local and national political figures. she and her husband entertained these political figures. serving as hostess or those

dinners would have been incredibly important. >> a conversation on lucy hayes is now available on our website, c-span.org/firstladies. tune in next monday for a program on lucretia garfield and mary arthur mcelroy. >> "washington journal" continues. host: i am with brian higgins, democrat from new york. he serves on the foreign affairs and homeland security committees. i want to get your response, with the attorney general he -- general talking about this probe into phone calls at the associated press. he attorney general talked about it being an issue of security. what was your take on his comments yesterday? yes, i think the attorney general has to justify in testimony -- guest: i think the attorney general has to justify in testimony that this is a national security issue. an obligation to

come forth -- to be forthcoming about the reason for this collection of information and data. tot: let's take a listen what the attorney general said yesterday when he was giving his reason for why this probe is happening. [video clip] don't know what all went into the formulation of the subpoena. this was a very serious -- a very serious leak. a very, very serious leak. i have been a prosecutor since 1976, and i have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three real seriously i have ever seen. it took the american people at risk. and that is not hyperbole. it put the american people at risk. and trying to determine who is responsible for that i think required very aggressive action.

and as i said, i'm sure that the subpoena, as formulated, based on the people i know -- i don't know about the facts, but based on the people i know, i think that's a pinot was done -- that subpoena was done in conformance with the rights -- [end video clip -- clip] host: looking at these conversations regarding yemen. that it delayed publishing its story on may 2, 2012, and because federal officials cited national security concerns." he recused himself from the process. he talks to reporters and has interface with them. guest: he said he did not know everything that went into the subpoena. he said that it's being itlected and released --

being collected and released but the american people in jeopardy. he needs to answer why. host: do you think there is a danger and classified media -- classified leaks getting to media? guest: there is a process by which you connect the parts. before you connect the parts, you have to collect the dots. you have to have great, accurate information -- you would rather have great, accurate information that is verifiable, rather than information based on speculation and innuendo. this pumps up a lot -- against --this bumps up a lot at this bumps up against a lot of other issues. fifth term.in his your first appearance on the "washington journal." thanks for being here this morning. the washington post"

and other organizations coming out and condemning what the justice department has done in secretly subpoenaing these phone records. what do you make of the media response? guest: it is predictable, and they should be. they should be defending first amendment rights. it is fundamental to of democracy. i think over the next -- to a democracy. i think over the next several days, we will have more information forthcoming from the justice department to justify in a clear and compelling way. host: we were talking about civil liberties earlier in the show. some of our tweeters were chiming in and talking about what they see as civil liberties. how do you think about civil liberties? guest: in a time particularly post 9/11, you have to find the balance of protection of civil liberties and the protection of the homeland. and a lot of individuals that not a lot of individuals, but there are individuals that want to do harm to our country.

a good thing is law enforcement officials have become very good at detecting -- the good thing is law enforcement officials have become very good at detecting, monitoring, supporting terrorist plots. it is incumbent on us as a free society to make that balance -- find that balance between the protection of individual liberties and the protection of the homeland. host: we see jim tweeting in and " civil liberties are assurances from government that you are free to engage in certain actions." you can join the conversation by ating us a call, democrats (202) 585-3880. replubic -- replub -- republicans at (202) 585-3881. give us some insight into what this act is and what your thoughts are.

guest: it is about what congress'priorities are -- congress' priorities are. you have the southern border. more important to me is the northern border. i represent buffalo, which is on the canadian border. it is about a 350-mile between the u.s. and canada. we have been friends and trading partners. the buffalo-north america trading economy is highly -- coming overe and supporting our economy. we have to be sure that it is people who are legal and have good intentions. we have found out from some hearings -- there are terrorist organizations that have a presence in north america, including hezbollah, which acts as a proxy for syria and iran.

buffalo is a major entry point from canada. places like toronto into the united states. we have to be vigilant. exercise budgetary responsibilities in this markup, but also oversight responsibilities. host: we are seeing that happen in the homeland security arena. takinghomeland security a role in the broader immigration debate? we see the house piecemeal looking at elements of legislation. we see the senate looking at one big immigration bill that is working its way through senate committee. how is your approach working? how is security playing in? a nation ofe immigrants. the united states this year will take on more immigrants legally than every other country in the world combined. that is our tradition. i am here because of the generous immigration policy. a lot of people in congress are here because of the generation -- of a generous immigration

policy. we have to find the right law- enforcement tools, and the right resources, budgetary and otherwise, to ensure that people do not come in illegally to create problems. thebalance again -- balance, again, is homeland security and ensuring that terrorist activity is properly monitored. again, what is remarkable is not that these bad people exist out there. what is remarkable is that federal law enforcement agencies come a working with canadian law enforcement agencies in the western -- agencies, working with canadian law enforcement agencies in western new york, find terrorist activity before it is executed and prevent -- and can do harm. an independent caller on the wisconsin line. good morning. good morning. well, congressman, god bless you. i know you are trying your best.

i have to say this. why is the american jobs act not as urgently important as everything else? that is such a big part of our homeland security, it seems to .e, that people need jobs and i haven't heard a single thing about jobs, jobs, jobs, that supposedly was everybody's focus when they were going to washington. and i am just so disappointed because nobody seems to care anymore that we are not working. and the federal government is employing all those people who are saying that the government is too big. these people are employed by the government. is i'm not understanding -- there any way the american jobs act can be thought about again? talk about again -- talked about again? guest: i think the caller is sws the substance. the fact of the matter is, if

you look at today, a lot of -- ign-policy experts i think we are coming to the conclusion that our focus should be more on the middle class and trying to build the economy of this country and a strong, prosperous america is an inspiration to the rest of the world. some of these places -- the syrians are going to have to figure out their situation. we cannot resolve a civil conflict for them. there's a lot of bad things happening there. we don't condone that. we shouldn't condone that. but the fact of the matter as -- 1860, the americans went through a civil war 750,000 people died -- through a civil war. 750,000 people died. i think focusing on rebuilding our infrastructure, scientific research, and education is the

nationbuilding we ought to be doing. not in afghanistan, not in iraq, but in america. re is a meeting to meeting today to look at the policy towards it ran -- towards iran. where do you expect this to go on and how do you want the policy to evolve? -- to go, and how do you want the policy to evolve? youth and technology are used not only for organizational purposes. iran is very good at repression. but is also used for aspirational purposes. young iran sees how people are living living in america, and they want that. are livingions -- in america, and they want that. the 80 million iranians are probably very pro-american. it is the regime that eds to be ousted that are repressing

their own people. more american people deal with their problems successfully, the more effective we can be in foreign- policy issues. hubert humphrey once said that the most effective foreign- policy -- foreign-policy was the civil rights act of 1964. only when we live of our cash live up -- live up to our values can we be an inspiration. haost: hi, john. am a retired police officer. after 9/11, the national institute of technology reviews to test the -- refused to test the dust. they said there was no point in looking for something they don't believe this there.

guest: i was at 9/11 three days after the attack, at ground zero. the devastation on america and the world trade tower -- keep in mind that they identified those terrorists because they are the terrorists- identified those because they are symbolic with american prosperity. i don't know what the sub explosives were. that is beyond my competence. but it is incredible that -- it is incredible, the death and destruction that inflicted on the american people. in and lookseets at civil liberties and the connection to the evolution of the patriot act and other things post-9/11. "what civil liberties? they have been disappearing since 2001." guest: a lot. an fbis a passage that

in new york city physically got sick when the second plane hit the tower. he did because he knew that between the cia, the fbi, and local law enforcement agencies, they have the intelligence to potentially thwart that terrorist attack before it was actually executed. was toriot act initially remove the barriers that existed between federal law enforcement agencies so they could more effectively share intelligence toward the goal of keeping the homeland safe. unfortunately, and this is what happens in washington and congress, a lot of things got lobbed onto it 0-- are not aso it that appealing, as clear. we are always trying to get it right -- that balance between civil liberties and protecting the homeland. it will never be perfect. this is not an exact science, but we learn from each incident.

and hopefully, as mature adults, we learn lessons and incorporate them into future policy. host: another coloradan. go ahead. caller: yes, thank you. i as well as many americans get tired of hearing about scandals. i think a lot of them are a waste of time and money. there is one scandal that does upon me, and that is the rate of these lovely young women in our military. lovelyratpe of these young women in our military. my mother was a weapons air force pilot. she said she got a lot of sexual harassment. this has been going on for decades and decades and decades, but i had no idea these women were being raped with impunity. can you do anything about that? thank you. yes >> unacceptable -- guest: on acceptable. unacceptable.

department of defense has indicated a strong commitment to begin a new a process -- begin a new a process to ensure that those who are found guilty of these kinds of activities are brought to justice. this is a systemic problem. something needs to be done. it needs to be decisive. will hold the defense department accountable for positive outcomes from these deplorable incidents that we have seen reported over the last several months. this week, thee, pentagon released a report that the number of sexual assaults -- from 19,000 in 2010 to 26,000 just a few days -- 26,000. guest: we need assurances that

they are taking serious, decisive, and expeditious actions to ensure that this problem is combated and eradicated entirely. host: and independent -- an independent. go right ahead. i am callingeason in is to share some ideas concerning these situations with the ap -- this situation with the ap. my understanding is the reason they went after the people in the ap to get information is somebody hadley to the-- -- somebody had leaked to the ap the methods and tactics the cia had used to track down one of the most notorious bomb makers in yemen. the concern was that this would

alert them to the fact that the cia was on to him. they were trying to find out who leaked that information. my bet is that if president obama got -- something went wrong, based on something that went wrong in yemen -- the same people that was talking about the ap situation would have been -- you see what i'm saying? people are trying to have things both ways. of what theyight were really trying to track down. my understanding is that he is still at large. they still have not caught him. he is one of the most sophisticated bomb makers in the al qaeda organization. they are still trying to catch him. he is the most dangerous one.

he is constantly trying to come up with ways to get bombs on airplanes, to get bombs in the united states. and the cia was tracking him down, trying to catch him. host: let's look at "the "washington journal." washington journal." later in the story, it says the plot was foiled early on because the alleged bomber was a mole working against al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. s in question covered a four-week period around the time the associated press wrote an article in may, 2012, about a conspiracy to detonate an underwear bomb aboard a u.s.-bound airliner. guest: i think the bottom line is good journalists,

individually and as an organization, seek, i think, the truth. i think good media outlets, credible media outlets have demonstrated a willingness to , but io investigations think it is incumbent upon the department of justice to provide a compelling reason as to why. over time, within a couple weeks, we should find that there will be either some telling information or not as to -- there will be compelling information or not as to whether the department of justice was justified in their concerns about this ap report. host: let's go to galveston, texas. hi, andrew. caller: we often have a lot of good programs to create new jobs here in the states. the one i wanted to talk about is this visa program, which is under homeland security. i wanted to explain the detail

i'm not going -- to explain the detail of the program. but the program was very bureaucratic and extremely expensive and also extremely slow, which basically took it out -- was a great opportunity to bring some foreign capital into the states and create new jobs here. i welcome your response. overallt is part of an immigration policy. i presume that it will be either strengthened, hopefully, or weakened during this debate. the united states know how to do this. we will bring in more immigrants into the united states than every single country in the world combined. part of the reason for our dynamic and growing economy -- dynamic in growing the economy

forward is doing this. we will have 100 million more people living in the united states by 2050. that is not true for italy or japan. that is not true for countries whose immigration policies are reducing the population other countries. , hungry,in new energetic immigrants to this country has built the strongest public-private partnership in the history of the world. we can figure this out. and all the other issues that are highly politicized are otherwise very substantial, important issue the greatscores strength of our american economy. brian higgins,an democrat from new york, representing the 26th district. he has roots in local government. he was on the buffalo common

council in the early -- in the 1980's and early 1990 cost -- early-1990's. he traveled extensively through some of the world's most volatile regions, including darfur, or afghanistan, and iraq -- dart four -- including darfur, afghanistan, and iraq. guest: the last thing the united states needs to do is get involved in a third civil war. host: is there a breaking point? is there a point where it triggers an international response that must happen? guest: there are ways we can help and there are ways we are helping now. to assist be ready our allies. the united states going in first and having an elongated commitment there is not something that is in our best interest. a mess.

afghanistan is a mess. it is the most corrupt, poorest country on the face of the earth. it is not getting any better. until afghans, unless and until iraq use, unless and until syrians stand up and take control of their future, there is nothing we can do to help. if they demonstrate they are prepared to do that and are willing to do that, then, yes, we should be responsive. my history in northern ireland ever thought peace was possible between catholics and protestants in northern ireland. now they have a power-sharing agreement. the economic truth -- growth of northern ireland is very impressive, despite problems in europe otherwise. united states did not deploy deploy any troops there, neither did great britain. it was those countries pushing the two sides together to come to some kind of accommodation. that is a problem we often have in the middle east.

it is not as though you have a bad government in assad and his father before him and then the good rebels. it is bad and maybe worse. the syrian opposition has had three presidents in the last three weeks. we have to know what we are getting involved with in these places, and it has to meet with our strategic interests. them to continue to get rid of the assad government, but to form a government with a constitution and rights extended to the people who have been denied those rights i think is fundamentally important to a new they can figure out that and only they can demonstrate to the rest of the world that they wanted badly enough. host: the next caller is fred with congressman higgins. our independent line.

caller: yes, good morning. i recently left the tsa because of the corruption issue there. o.b.w it is not up at probably the next problem child with all the money that is blown. you have positions at that organization that do nothing but push a politically-correct agenda. very expensive. high salaries. warehouses full of junk that lobbyists and people from former positions have sold, tsa junk that they never use, like a shoe x-ray, things like that. i know nothing will be done, but i think you need to find out how to lay into this waste. knowe napolitano -- i

napolitano, she sugarcoat everything. there are not enough people to work the checkpoints -- she .ugarcoats everything there are not enough people to work the checkpoints. there are crazy things that need to be investigated and cleaned out. i would estimate that most of -- probably five dollars of every $10 spent is of every probably $5 $10 ispent is wasted. america knows how the checkpoints are. you need to investigated before it blows up with everything else. host: thank you. guest: airport security is a difficult thing. you will never getting knowledge for what didn't happen. security apparatus is designed

to prevent things from happening, so you never get a full picture. it is inconvenient. i always believe there has to be a better, more efficient way to screen at the airport and what we are currently doing -- at the airport than what we are currently doing. and we throw a lot of money -- through a lot of money -- we 11rew a lot of money post-9/ at security. i think this is the appropriate time, some 12 years after, to really reassess what we are doing as a nation, be it airport security and everything else, finding better ways and more cost-efficient ways to protect the homeland without undermining civil liberties. again, that is kind of the theme that was established here early on, but that is always the balance. we always have to be in continuous-improvement mode and not become complacent about these things. host: our indianapolis collar --

caller, if he feels like he saw specific examples of waste or abuse of power, what should he do? guest: report it to members of congress. that's what you have representation for. reported to the inspector general of homeland security. our government tries to get it right with a lot of checks and balances. it does not always do it. it is somewhat convoluted and inefficient in many ways. i think overall, people do the right thing. any allegations of wrongdoing should be reported. as a member of congress with a budgetary oversight responsibility, i don't want that to continue. --t: congressman or congressman brian higgins, democrat of new york, the homeland security terrorism -- counterterrorism and intelligence ranking democrat. he also serves on foreign affairs. let's go to las vegas, nevada, and hear from amanda, democrats

' line. am an american-born citizen of mexican descent. when it help but realize look around at the community that there are more and more from my native land, according to my ancestors, who are getting handed on a silver platter education, medical benefits, all without having a social security number or an american-born birth certificate. my concern on this is that, as , i as the homeland security don't have any objections to the airport searches. i understand that is essential and necessary because it is a very different time. but i digress.

i was wrongfully accused and convicted at a time. and i had no means to [indiscernible] this spot on my record. i come from a long line of family members that are burying, ex marines, discharged -- that are marines, ex-marines, honorably discharged. host: what is your goal in this conversation? caller: i hope the government way to involve a ex-convicts in a way to be more patriotic and possibly even helping with homeland security, things beingese

used to incarcerate people that are innocent, such as myself. guest: i think with citizenship comes responsibility. we are a people of laws. they are designed to protect individual liberties. we guarantee the pursuit of happiness. so long as you abide by our laws and respect individual rights, you are free to pursue whatever it is you want to pursue as an american citizen. that is the beauty of this country. that is why people want to be here. we take in more immigrants legally than any country in the world combined. we will have 100 million more people in this country by 2050. if we become churlish about our immigration policy, then we are just becoming like countries that we don't want to be like relative to their immigration policies. areeconomic problems

directly attributable to their immigration policies. we are a country of immigrants. we know how to do it. we know how to take people in legally. we know how to assimilate them. we know how to use them to the benefit of the country, both in terms of life quality and economics. i think that we have to recognize that there are individuals -- that those individuals -- that as individuals become citizens, they have a responsibility with the right of citizenship to this country to contribute to making it better. host: santa cruz, california. a republican. i hope you will give me as much time as you gave that women -- woman pretending to be a republican. nobody brought any of this to his attention. secretary of state -- she did this.derstand any of eric holder -- i don't know. i have a lot of papers to sign. we don't need anyone of these three people. the president is at the top,

secretary of state. eric holder, head of the justice department. and now he is recusing himself. it just so happens when the president came out and said -- obama came out and said i don't know anything about this. i know what i read in the newspaper, just like you, just like the american people. , theeeks prior to that presidential council was told all about that. and he did not go to the president and say, hey, we've got to talk here, we've got a big problem? nixon -- it was all in the papers. americansas four dead -- americans. host: let's get the response. aret: presidents ultimately held responsible. the justice department is a cabinet position. the irs is a division within treasury. this president, and i believe he

will, has to get to the bottom of this. it is a huge bureaucracy. i believe him that he was not aware of this. but it is incumbent on his administration to get answers and get those answers to the american people, and that's what this process is all about. the president is a very good communicator, so it is incumbent upon him, as i said, in the next several days to come out with a clear statement either justified or refute what has gone on your -- here. and if there were mistakes made, he needs to apologize to the american people and move on. host: the irs? guest: all these allegations. what happens is these things get chewed up in the congressional, washington culture. that grows. economy they want an economy -- growth in the economy that can be sustained over a long period of time. that is how you resolve --

reduce debt and deficit. all of the people who decry all of the spending in washington are the ones who do all the spending. two tax cuts that did not produce economic growth. it gave us the worst period of economic downturn in the last 75 years. trillionthat took $2 out of the economy. a drug prescription that was not paid for -- drug prescription program that was not paid for. our economy has a growth problem. and there is not an example of an-- in human history where economy has grown out of recession because of austerity measures. it did not happen in japan in the 1990's. it did not happen in the united states in 1937. the issue is not -- don't get involved in syria. nationbuilding at home. infrastructure, scientific research, and education. post,"the new york

quite a way from buffalo, but still a new york paper. what is your take right now on information coming out on benghazi? what do you think commerce should be doing? -- think congress should be doing? situationsink these are very complicated. benghazi is an old and confused place. everybody is in a rush to get the story right. they are being cautious about not putting something out there be detrimentalay to our nation's interest. i'm listing very carefully. i try to be objective. everybody else should, too. they should not press for political points by exploiting the tragedy that took the life of a career diplomat. we should want to get this right. there is a tendency to over politicize these situations towards larger, political objectives that do not meet the

best interest of americans. from tony inear indianapolis, independent scholar -- caller. go ahead. caller: [indiscernible] i think america also needs a truthful president. i don't believe we have one right now. the president needs to figure out what is going on and tell the american people in the next eightys, but it has been months since benghazi and he still has not told the truth. he went on tv yesterday or the day before yesterday and he still lies about it. [indiscernible] [indiscernible] this president has got more money than any other president in our history, but they don't want to talk about that. host: tony --

tony, did you start your comment by saying you wanted a truthful president or a traditional president? i could not hear what you said. caller: truthful. i want somebody who tells the truth. guest: i think this president is truthful, honest, and working very hard to do the right thing on the behalf of the american people. i think these investigations get exploited for political purposes. ,ou have seen it in the past whether it is benghazi, whether it is the irs, whether it is the department of justice relative to the ap story. it just happens in this culture, unfortunately. but the bottom line is, we want to get to the truth. i think this president will want to get to the truth. he has an obligation to convey exactly what is going on with the three of these things that could occupy us right now because it keeps us from other,

, likemportant things making the investment in the american economy to grow this economy, because ath competitir before from throughout the world. ,nformation technology globalization allows every country to plug in and play economically hear those are the priorities i think the american people have an established -- play economically. those are the priorities i think the american people have established. the: finally, we will see attorney general testified before the house judiciary committee today, looking into justice department oversight. what will you be watching from the sidelines as he testifies? will you be tuning into certain elements of his testimony? what matters to you? guest: i think it is implement -- incumbent on congress to ask the right questions. they should be probing and aggressive.

the attorney general should be scrutinized, but i don't think this should morph into the next presidential election. i think the attorney general has an obligation to congress to be forthcoming with all of the information that is available. and if he cannot disclose certain pieces of information, communicate that clearly and justify why you cannot. that will build trust in the context of these congressional oversight investigations, and that best serves the american people and the government. host: congress brian -- congressman brian higgins, thanks so much for joining us. coming up next, our spotlight on magazines segment looks at a piece in reason close -- in "reason" magazine. tracing the stimulus money, how it was spent, and what it amounted to. first, an update from c-span radio. >> economic news this hour -- sharp drops in food and fuel

cost reduced the wholesale prices by the most since february, 2010, an indication inflation is slowing. the producer price index, which measures price changes before they reach the consumer, fell a seasonally-adjusted 0.7% in april from march, the second straight decline. the associated press reports that this year's budget deficit is now projected to come in well below what was estimated just a few months ago. the congressional budget office study released yesterday predicts a 2013 budget deficit of $642 billion, more than $200 billion below its february estimate. and the house agriculture five- year farm bill is expected to take a small cut in the $80 stampn per year food program. some lawmakers say the food aid program has become too expensive. it sets policy for farm subsidies, rural program, and food aid. the senate agriculture committee has approved its version. the house agriculture committee

against considering amendments in 45 minutes. here the markup session live -- markup session live on c-span radio. [video clip] antsy cia is ansi -- about this. they don't like what's happening. at least some people don't like what's happening. reagan has not officially told the cia to do anything like this. they get reagan to sign -- december, 1985 -- a document authorizing -- it says, for these reasons, i ordered these agencies to do this and this and this, and it is fairly specific. there were two dead things about this finding in december, 1985, -- -- two things about this finding in december, 1985, that are unusual.

it is retroactive. a finding is supposed to be signed by the president before a covert -- is initiated. saying alllicitly prior actions are hereby ratified and approved. thing that is unusual, it states explicitly, the document does, don't tell the house and senate intelligence committees about this. don't tell them. it is a very, very unusual and questionable document that reagan signed, so why did he do it? the cia insists that reagan has to give them some kind of legal and political cover. >> "arms to iran." -- arms to iran. rossinow looks at the history.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: on wednesdays at this time, we look -- turn to the spotlight on magazines. our guest is peter suderman. how the federal government flushed away the $833 billion stimulus. thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. was: the so-called stimulus passed in 2009. is it still being implemented today? where is it at? bulkst: we have spent the of that money. we have put that money into the economy. we have borrowed that money. at this point, it is more or less done. at this piece was in a lot of ways was an attempt to look back at why we got the stimulus we got, why we got a stimulus at all, and how it was spent and some of the theories that underlie the design of the program.

-- whywhy did we arrive did we have the stimulus? how did we get the numbers we arrived at? thet: is started on campaign trail in 2008, before the -- it started on the campaign trail in 2008, before the economic meltdown we saw in the fall of 2008. the economy was looking quite jittery. president bush passed a $150 million stimulus plan that gave everyone a tax break. it gave most everyone in america not just a tax break, but cut them a check for about $600. so, obama then on the campaign need more,of said we we need more stimulus, we need to do a follow-up, and it needs to be done differently. and so that was where the idea kind of started. president bush did his stimulus. it was a tax break, it was tax focused.

obama wanted to do a different kind of stimulus. one that was more focused on infrastructure spending, one that was more focused on projects the democrats like, green jobs, that sort of thing. so, that was really where it got ar. and then with the collapse of wall street, with the major economic calamity that came right before the election that year, that is when there was really an impetus to get better on some -- get going on something better and larger and get it out of the door very quickly. obama meant -- made it priority number one for his presidency. host: peter suderman. give us your gauge of the impact it has had. guest: the best thing i can say is we don't really know. attempts to measure our much are reliable -- measure much less reliable, and i really think we should be less

a lot of in them than people say, and that's a big part of the point i want to make in this piece, that all of these efforts to measure the overall impact in terms of jobs, in terms of growth of the economy, of gdp. when you look at those efforts to measure, what you really find is that we don't know a lot, that they are not actually great guides to what we know to what the stimulus really did hear it it's not because the people who are doing them are doing a bad job, it's because it's very hard to measure and $800 billion program to stimulate -- to measure an $800 billion program. like to talkwould with peter suderman, here are the numbers. democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. .ndependents, (202) 585-3882

you write that a key metric of this is a multiplier. explain what that means and why it is significant. guest: this was a big part of the theory that gave us the particular stimulus that we got, the idea that when the willnment spends money, it create additional economic activity throughout the wider economy. let's say the government spends 10 dollars. if you have a multiplier of 2.0, for every one dollar the government spends, it creates $2 theconomic activity in wider economy. of the sort of the idea multiplier. if you look at the research into what multipliers are, what you really find is that economists don't really have a great idea or a lot of agreement on what the multiplier is. we have seen big surveys of the

best literature. what they tell us is that anywhere from as low as 0.5 am a which means if you spend 1, you 0.5,get $.50 -- as low as which means if you spend $1, you only get 50 cents -- it tells us how uncertain the idea of the multiplier is. close >> david firestone wrote a piece for the new york times -- host: david firestone wrote a piece for "the new york times." he said, "don't tell anybody, the stimulus worked." he writes --

guest: so, that is talking about the portion of the stimulus that was spent on what we call transfer programs. the stimulus had three major parts. part of it was a trickle-out tax breaks that use on your paycheck over the course of many, many weeks. it was not a big, lump-sum like the bush tax break. part of it was what we think of when we think of stimulus, spending on infrastructure-type projects, construction, that sort of thing. and another big part of it was on these transfer payments, things like expanded unemployment benefits, more money for medicaid, things like that. the thing that i get into in my piece is my yes, those programs -- is, yes, those programs did

ease the burden of the recession for many people, but it comes with a trade-off. when you make it easier to be unemployed, you have fewer people -- you just create -- you create incentives for people to not stop being unemployed, to not go look for a job. there is some research that suggests as many as 2 million people, 3 million people would have had nearly as much disposable income under the had not takeney a job than if they had taken a job that was paid at about the same as the job they previously had. we have a couple million people who have an incentive to basically -- where it is easy, relatively easy anyway -- or at least easier for them to not work. then you have to wonder, did this program -- it does in additional incentives in the transfer spending -- did this program, did additional incentives in the transfer spending make it easier for

people to not find another job? host: a caller on our independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a question for your guest. basically, which industries received most of the money and which industries currently still owe the taxpayers? know, i have not seen a breakdown of which industries in particular got the money, but a lot of the spending was on construction-type projects. wereer, these projects divided up over a really large variety of types of firms. of environmental engineering firms. you had firms that -- you had .eople who were tile layers you had construction firms. i stuck my piece -- start my piece talking about a firm that

got about half $1 million to install -- half amill -- half a million dollars to install toilets in a forest. a fair amount of the money went to people who -- individuals through tax breaks, as well as through transfer programs like medicaid, like unemployment benefits, that sort of thing. so, i don't have a breakdown here. the thing is these -- the companies that got the money don't have to pay back the taxpayer to that's not exactly how it works. what happens is they get the money. basically, the government is buying the product from them. it is like they are a contractor with the government am a perhaps like you would think of a defense contractor. the government is paying a company from spokane, stall toiletso in

and they get paid to do that. that is not alone. arlene happens at the federal level. $833 billion.as -- borrowing te that is taxpayer money that adds to our federal debt, is what it does. it creates and adds to the $16 trillion or so we already have or has added to that amount we already have in federal debt. host: more information, found on the government's website. here is a map of the u.s. showing the funding for federal contracts, grants, and loans as part of the stimulus spending. you can see the various states and where there's more money spent, less money spent. our guest is peter suderman. we're talking about his recent piece about stimulus spending. caller: 22.

a democrat governor participated in the stimulus program. in september 2008, my job ended and so i was fortunate enough to be able to slide on a social security, which put me on a fixed income. and i benefited from the stimulus package. assessor, in and find out what the home needed. my furnace was about 20 some odd years old and i did not know where the money was coming from, so they replaced my furnace, which was made in north carolina. the irony of it, most of the contractors came out of mississippi. there was some other work done. people to about 10 work for about three weeks to a month, and i understand they did

about 30,000 homes to retrofit to make them more energy efficient. that is another thing. my energy bill has gone down. it is hard to say exactly how much, but it is much lower than it was before this was done. i want to thank my president because i really appreciate what he did for me. thank you. guest: the caller talked there about the 10 people that were put to work doing some of this work. one of the interesting things i talk about in my piece is in some of the surveys, businesses that took stimulus funds to perform work, they did in that hiring people to perform work. they did end up hiring people to perform work that was specifically called for by the stimulus, but what they did not do in some cases was hire people who are already unemployed. they hired people who had jobs

previously. it is one thing to say the stimulus -- the firm hired people with stimulus money, but another thing to say it hired unemployed people. it is really difficult to tell how many of the people who were hired with stimulus funds were previously unemployed. we have one interesting survey, about a comprehensive survey, but there are some suggestions that actually a quite large percentage of the people who were hired with stimulus funds to do some of these contracts and jobs, some of these construction jobs, were employed before they were hired with the stimulus money. suderman, one of your colleagues did a piece attached to your cover story looking out what companies did with stimulus money in terms of jobs. we can see this chart --

what do those numbers mean to you? we're not sing 23% who kept on new hires and 6% that kept some. guest: the interesting question for people thinking about the affects of the stimulus, with the people hired for the stimulus, were those people hired to create new, full-time jobs that state in existence after the stimulus money went away? what we see is in some cases the answer is yes, but in many cases the answer is that companies hire people with the stimulus money, but as soon as the stimulus money ran out, those people did not have those jobs that were created by the stimulus. were created with -- that were funded with stimulus funds. those jobs did not exist anymore. how do you measure these things? do we think of the stimulus as a success because it created some jobs temporarily for some

people and those jobs did not last, or do we think of the stimulus as not quite doing what we really wanted it to do when those jobs don't last and when those companies don't those positions? host: washington, independent caller. go ahead. caller: your guest talked about the multiplier factor earlier. i am wondering, is it his argument that the multiplier factor is wrong? because he turned it around and used his own numbers, which are based on statistics -- everybody who goes to college takes statistics. is he saying that the multiplier factor is wrong were inaccurate or she would not be using it? if not, what should we be using to judge these programs? question,t is a great sir. the way i would say it is that when someone tells you that we

are very confident, that we know the exact effect of spending of a dollar of government stimulus, you should be a little bit wary of anyone who says they are very confident. because in fact, the best economists in the best economic research is not highly confident about the effect, the multiplier effect of government purchases, of government spending to stimulate the economy. when you look at the service of the literature, you see that multipliers can be as high as 2.0 or 2.5, and you also see multipliers -- something the multiplier is below 1.0, even substantially as low as 0.56. all of this research is pretty interesting, pretty useful research that we should be looking at. what that tells us is not that there is no such thing as a

multiplier and not that we should ignore it completely, but simply, we don't know as much about how the multiplier works as some people have suggested we do. host: on twitter -- guest: in some ways, no. someone was going to lose a job or if we were going to hire an unemployed person, either way, you have a job that has been created or saved as the link go-go's. you remember back in 2009 when the stimulus was being passed, this was an issue of contention where president obama and the administration first used language suggesting the stimulus would create several million jobs, then they backtrack a little bit when they realized. indirectly, creating new jobs was not something they wanted to

be saying. they changed the language they were saying to say it created or saved jobs. it is an interesting point and an interesting way to think about the effect of the stimulus, what it did, what it really tells us again is how hard this sort of thing is to measure and what we don't know about it because, you know, the administration is using a kind of expansive way of talking about this just because it is so hard to figure out exactly which jobs the stimulus did and did not find an exactly where that money went. host: dallas, democrat line. caller: i am calling in regard to the stimulus. the gentleman said something about when they first -- when they first started distributing the stimulus, they were giving families $600. he said -- he did not mention

the $250 they were giving individuals that qualified. also, most of the southern states kept the money. guest: 8 $833 billion stimulus we think of as the stimulus in many cases. the $600 checks were passed under president bush. what i was talking about, the thing to remember is just that on the campaign trail, that was something happening while barack obama was campaigning for president. so he framed his calls for stimulus in many ways in

response to president bush paused stimulus plan. as far as how states spent the money and what states did, there is some research that i don't get into my article but there is research out there that suggests that in fact what states did was took the money and borrowed less with it. and they did not actually end up buying new things with the stimulus money, which would have created jobs, but instead they simply borrowed a little less and buy about the same amount of stuff. as a result, there was not a huge multiplier effect. that was the conclusion of a couple of economists who look at how that money was distributed and spent at the state level. host: let's look at comments made by the cbo director. here is an excerpt. cated or saved up to 3.6 million jobs but the

director of the cbo as noted it the real-world results were different, if the law created 5 million jobs, or if it created an adult, the agency would not know. you touched on this, but explain more about the questioning. guest: this is a big thing that i many people really pay attention to, which is the attempt to measure the stimulus by the congressional budget office as the stimulus was being rolled out, tell us a lot less than peoples in the thing they tell us. as you said, the congressional budget office estimated the stimulus created up to 3.5 million jobs or so. there is also as part of that a low and range. the low end is about 500,000 or 600,000 jobs. that in an of itself tells you something, which is the range . the congressional budget office can put a top end and no and on

it, but it could be anywhere in between and as high as l as. but the other thing here, the methodology for the congressional budget office is not to actually go and count the number of jobs or track the number of jobs that were actually created under the stimulus. what they did instead was used the same model, the same economic model that they use to predict the stimulus would create jobs before the stimulus was passed, before any of that money was spent. so all they did was plug in new spending numbers into the old model. as a result, if something completely different, something that has nothing to do with the model and was not predicted by the model at all happened, the cbo's estimates would not have caught that and that is with the congressional budget office director was saying was that

these estimates only -- bacon only tell you so much. and if the steelers decorated no jobs or if it created many more jobs than that top in the range, we would not know because that is not how we are tracking the stimulus and that is not what our reports are saying. host: peter suderman, his article is "down the drain." up next, independent color. caller: i wanted to raise the point this was borrowed money. if that stimulus money were in fact taxed or an increase in tax, that is just redistributing wealth. as far as the borrowing the money, we will never know how much it actually cost us. we pass that debt onto our

grandchildren. thatnterest payments on $837 billion will certainly amount to a great deal of money, plus it could help raise us to the tipping point where inflation runs rampant after all, that is the cruelest tax of all. guest: that is a good point and a good way to think about it, that this is borrowed money. the thing i would say here is that not only is a borrowed money, it is money we will have to pay back through taxes because to spend is to tax. eventually it's payback. the other part of that is that the debt left over from the stimulus eventually creates a drag on the economy according to the congressional budget office. what the congressional budget office said in its report is the stimulus increased gross

domestic product, made the economy bigger by somewhere between 0.3% and 1.9%. but what they also said was in a decade or so, when we are still left with the debt from having borrowed this $800 billion, that is going to create a little bit of slowness in the growth of the economy. it will make it harder for the economy to grow because when there is more federal debt, that makes it more difficult for the economy to expand. host: kansas, republican. caller: i wanted to ask about the cppw grand prix at a notice about a month ago a report came out and cause of action and i have been trying for the last two years to get someone to look into the illegal lobbying in fronted with the grants. guest: sorry, go ahead.

tens of millions at least in being used around the country. guest: it is not something i looked at in my article. as far as a lobbying goes, i don't think i can answer your question directly. it is not something that came up in my research at all. host: here is the piece from reason magazine. you can find it here in this latest edition. tell us about the magazine. guest: it is a magazine of free minds and free markets, comes from abroad the small libertarian perspective. the way we look at things is sort of, how to maximize freedom in the individual realm both in terms of how our money is spent but also in terms of how the government regulates personal activity. a follow-up question on

twitter. necessarily't oppose all stimulus. the idea that is at the heart of this piece is not that we should necessarily avoid all stimulus at all times, but simply this particular stimulus and the stimulus that we were able to get practically in the time that we had in the rush to do something, it may not have been as effective as was promised and as many people hoped. but that also we kind of just don't know, so should -- the idea is to ask a question, should we be spending this amount of money on something where in many ways will never really know how well it worked or if it worked at all, what

ways it may or may not have worked. host: democrat line. caller: i would just like to say that yes, we may not see the actual benefits but let's say we never put it into place and it had gotten a million times worse? what i am saying and sing in my community, they're worth companies that needed to be bailed out. if they had not been, thousands of people would have been out of a job. yes, it will increase taxes, but it could have gotten worse. it is borrowed money, but sometimes you got to do something that costs money to make money. be in aunity would horrible position without it. you don't see more jobs created, but at least is saved jobs. it is like an opportunity, would you rather have saved jobs were

lost jobs are mcjobs? host: thank you. guest: that is an interesting jobs -- thought about what we would have done this in this would have happened or if we had done a different stimulus, taken a different approach addressing the economic crisis. that is the big what if at the heart of macroeconomics that we cannot really resolve and it is why it is so hard to track and to measure this kind of economic intervention. one of the economists and talk to any peace who has done both her own research on the a fax of stimulus and also surveyed a lot of the high-quality research described the big problem to me something like this, she said, what we really want is macro economists is the ability to take a whole bunch of countries and with some of them we will

try at a certain amount of stimulus and with others we will have no stimulus at all. what we will end up with is a controlled experiment. that is the kind of controlled experiment that you just cannot get in macroeconomics. you cannot play games with people -- with the world's economies that way. that is why the congressional budget office has said very early on in the process that it is just impossible to know what would have happened in the absence of a stimulus. we have no idea because we cannot create -- we cannot know what the counter factualism read we cannot know the answer to that big what if question. what my piece was about was really the uncertainty created by that lack of counterfactual an inability to determine what happened without -- what would have happened if we had not done the stimulus. host: republican line, michigan.

caller: i attendant a little late, so i don't know -- itunes in a little late, so i don't know the premise of your magazine. is it right-wing, left-wing? i wonder if you have any information in their about farmers that it subsidies. for example, i read in the wall street journal and number of months ago where senator grassley, his son, has a farm or they have a form -- of course it is his son. subsidy for not growing things. is that factored into the stimulus? i regards to down the drain, think that does not sound good to me. i feel there are some americans that have gotten jobs as a result of the stimulus, whether

it is for a few months or longer, it is people that are devastating in the fact they're not collecting unemployment and things are better in all respects there -- and our country as opposed to everybody just being on unemployment, which is a tragic thing. i think the countries in europe that did not follow our stimulus are hurting more than what we are. thank you very much. i enjoy c-span. guest: thank you. a couple of questions there. in terms of farm subsidies, they are mostly doled out through federal farm program that is not part of the stimulus, so the programs that pay people to not grow things is mostly -- it is a separate program from the stimulus. reason magazine is published by the reason foundation, published

by a nonprofit organization. , nonprofitnpartisan organization. but like i said, we take generally a libertarian approach to the world. free minds, free markets. toask questions about how maximize freedom in the individual realm, whether it is economic or personal freedom. issue was about who has gotten jobs and who has benefited here. it is certainly the case we know that positions have been funded by the stimulus. we have evidence of this. we have seen some politicians suggest there were zero jobs, a goose egg jobs, i think was the quote on the campaign trail. we know in fact the stimulus did find some jobs, but the question is, what would have happened if we had not had a

stimulus? ant is it finding jobs or funding people who -- is the funding people who were employed before hand or unemployed before hand? it looks like in many cases at least the stimulus ended up finding jobs for people who already had jobs, in part because the positions that were funding were highly technical and required a fair amount of experience. as one economist told me, the best person for a job in many cases already has one. you end up hiring someone who could have got more, did have worked in many cases, some or else. host: you can share your thoughts with us on twitter. our guest is on twitter. let's hear from the independent

line. caller: we have been defined i would say jobs versus employment. every job the federal government creates is deficit spending. there is no profit margin involved. every employee that private- sector hires, there is a profit margin involved. the government is just throwing money after money after money into the job pool and the private sector is not creating any revenues to replace the money in the job pool. guest: with the stimulus, one thing i would say is with the stimulus, many of the positions that were funded with through purchasing with the stimulus, were with private companies. it is a little difficult to figure out -- you cannot just say -- i guess i should say, we have to think about how to split up these categories of things

with we are using public money to pay private contractors to employ private individuals. that is part of the stimulus. spending andicit adding to the debt. as the congressional budget office says, all else being equal, we add to the debt, and the long term, even if there is an initial up front boost to gdp, in the long term it does not make economic growth for the national economy somewhat more difficult and more likely to be slower rather than faster. host: democrat line, ohio. caller: i have a quick observation and a couple of questions. as i recall, about one-third of the stimulus bill went to tax cuts and expanded the polls. i think that was $280 billion. could we make the assumption a big chunk of it was tax cuts and

not broad money? my questions have to do with the issue of the funding of the computerization of health records. i don't have the numbers off the tip of my time, but i think it was $20 billion or $30 billion went to initiate the computerization of american health records. i wondered how we would have started the process if we had not gotten the kickstart from the reinvestment act of 2009, which i have noted is producing more efficient doctors' visits? i final question, there was a big boost in medicaid funding in 2009 and that was a godsend to our family because i think my mother would have been kicked out for assisted living residents in the last three years of her life. she died at age 92 in late 2012. how many elderly people do you think would have been displaced if it had not been for the expansion of the medicaid funding in 2009?

those are my questions. guest: let's talk first about the issue of tax cuts. when the government gives tax cuts, that can actually show up in the budget more less the same way that spending does. imagine the government is spending say $1 trillion and it gives a tax cut and if it is not paying for that tax cut, it still ends up being effectively, from a budgeting cents, borrow the money. and adding to the deficit can add to the deficit in the same way that borrowed money, then just trying to spend does come if you're not cutting spending to go along with that. portion is i.t. interesting. we spend quite a lot of money creating incentives for medical providers to adopt electronic health records.

what these electronic health records were supposed to do was make them or make the medical world more efficient, make it cheaper, and start the process of bringing down health spending or a least getting it under control. and the long term, how spending is a big problem just for the economy and it is a really big problem for the federal government because of all of its health spending commitments. but what we saw with the health it fundedon is programs that don't talk to each other. all of these hospitals now have these proprietary locked in systems where they have their internal health i.t. records for themselves but it is difficult for them to send them to other medical providers. in many ways it has not facilitated the type of communication. what it has facilitated is additional spending because what they used those programs to do and with those programs have allowed them to do is to gain

the medical billing systems. there's been some interesting reporting on this that have showed it has increased spending for hospitals. as far as medicaid, i don't know exactly how many people, but it did end up finding a lot of additional medicaid for the states. host: peter suderman peter, "down the drain." thank you for joining us. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] on, d.c., may 15, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable mo brooks to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the us